Voice Your Opinion: Pedestrian & Cycling Plan

16 comments on “Voice Your Opinion: Pedestrian & Cycling Plan”

1. Dale Stiles — July 11, 2017 at 1:37 pm

   For questions 1 and 2. I do walk the campus already and I do bike to work in the summer.
   The walk/bike path should go around the whole east side of campus to facilitate entering or leaving from north or south. This would also increase recreational walking/biking if there was a complete loop.
2. James Peters — July 11, 2017 at 1:43 pm

   Regarding the survey, you need other responses. For the “Why don’t you walk/cycle” questions… none of those reasons factor into my decision to walk or cycle to or on campus. So I didn’t answer them.

   When building infrasructure, please consider function over aesthetics. On the south bike/walking path parallel to Chancellor Matheson, someone had the bright idea to put in small sections of interlocking bricks at the intersections. With grade shifting, this has caused very bumpy, mind-jarring travel when approaching and leaving these intersections. My bike chain has literally fallen off as I bump my way through these intersections. Continuous pavement right to the street would have been better than the interlocking brick. The new north path on Chancellor Matheson is much better.
3. Staffer — July 11, 2017 at 1:53 pm

   This route along the north edge of campus doesn’t seem very useful to me (I work in the south end of campus).

   I start my approach to campus at the end of the Bishop Grandin Greenway.

   Right now, I go along D’arcy, through the golf course, and get spit out at Sifton Road.

   From there, there needs to be a north-south route through campus. I would suggest a separated bike route along Sidney Smith until it connects with the Curry Place pedway. That would provide a good connection with a majority of campus buildings, and fix one of the more dangerous parts of the commute (going along Sidney Smith, where you’re basically biking through a parking lot of inattentive drivers).
4. Susan Prentice — July 11, 2017 at 1:54 pm

   I bike to UM from Osborne Village – using a combination of Pembina Hwy and bike trails. The City’s proposed/current ‘dog leg’ route is of absolutely no use to me as a remedy to facilitate cycling. I wonder if UM can use its political clout to argue for more and better (separated) bike lanes along Pembina Hwy?
5. Staffer — July 11, 2017 at 1:55 pm

   (It would also be helpful to have a signalized crossing that cyclists can activate to cross Sifton Rd. to/from the golf-course path to D’arcy and the Greenway.

   Especially at the end of the day, that road is quite busy, and cars aren’t expecting/looking out for bikes.
6. Georg Schreckenbach — July 11, 2017 at 1:58 pm

   The proposed paths are good and useful. In addition, can we think bolder, and also include a pedestrian/ bike bridge over the river to St. Vital into the strategy?
7. Concerned — July 11, 2017 at 2:19 pm

   I have witnessed a few mishaps on the south side of the Ellis building, as cars come full speed from the east onto University Drive. There is no pedestrian crosswalk sign, nor is there a yield for vehicles, so cars do not stop for pedestrians, and it is difficult to see vehicles around the bend until the pedestrian is halfway through the intersection. Someone is going to get hurt. I personally have had two scares. It’s horrible.
8. Sheila Lapinski — July 11, 2017 at 2:29 pm

   Responses to questions 2 & 3:
   I do walk/bike to/from/around campus on a daily basis. Biking is favorable, as it’s considerably faster to bike to work than to walk or drive/park. I have biked in winter, so, planning to continue through.
   I prefer not to bike on the street with traffic but in the bike lanes parallel to sidewalks. Safest option. I hope to see more of these paths developed to/from & throughout the campus. With some education “walkers” will learn to stay on the sidewalk and off the biking paths beside them. Maybe a few more bicycle “stamps” painted periodically along the bike path would help.
   I prefer sharing bike routes alongside pedestrian sidewalks. I think it’s the safest/cost effective option for all. Bikes can’t compete with cars. Speed, passing and collisions always a concern. Bikes are relatively small and difficult for drivers to see, while assessing other traffic concerns. Give bikes a way to travel to/from/around campus that’s off the road away from traffic. I think you’ll see participation go up for sure.
9. UM Bannatyne Staff — July 11, 2017 at 2:38 pm

   Over the 15 year implementation, are there any plans for a UM Pedestrian & Cycling Plan for the faculty, staff, students and public traveling to and from the Bannatyne Campus?
10. Peter Pomart — July 19, 2017 at 12:17 pm

    I am very excited to see more cycle-friendly infrastructure being developed for Fort Garry. Thank you!
11. UM FG staff who bikes and jogs to work — July 19, 2017 at 12:23 pm

    I would say don’t bother creating these small segments until you can link active transit pathways together to allow continuous cross-campus transportation. Having people safe for 100m and then dumping them back onto a roadway to surprise cars is more of a hassle than the current system and has been shown in other locations across the city to cause more accidents. I understand budget limitations, but I truly think it’s better to have nothing at all than what is proposed in the PDF.
12. Ann Friesen — July 20, 2017 at 11:24 am

    I bike or walk to work every day entering the university by the south. Today a jogger and I almost collided as we both entered the tiny path between Freedman Cres and the Physical Plant parking lot. It is necessary to widen that path (remove bushes on the west side) and remove the parking stalls on the east side immediately to facilitate bike and pedestrian traffic there.
13. Bannatyne staff — July 21, 2017 at 10:05 am

    I would like to see more city busses with racks for the bikers who commute long distances.
14. Scott Watson — July 24, 2017 at 4:59 pm

    Few comments:

    #1 The Freedman/University connections are disasters for pedestrians, high speed design, no crosswalk, etc.

    #2 I have a feeling the new Sidney Smith Street pathway should be on the east side, not the west side as prevailing vehicle traffic will now cross the new pathway. I have a feeling I’ll end up ignoring the path after a few near misses at the Sifton crossing. Other flaw is the lack of speed bumps or speed ‘tabletop’ as vehicle traffic is usually above the speed limit on Sifton & Dysart.

    #3 the speed bumps on Dafoe have greatly improved bike./ped safety in that area, I hope they stick around after construction. Winnipeg drivers seem to be alergic to 30km/h zones, you have to encourage it with good street design, and blunt instruments like speed bumps.
15. Ron — July 24, 2017 at 5:58 pm

    bikes and pedestrians should not share the path. SEPARATE them. Bike lanes should follow the flow of traffic, I.E. driving on the right side of the road for the direction you are going. Bike lanes should not abruptly stop/ switch sides/ turn into sidewalks. CONTINUATION and CONSISTENCY are essential.
    Bike lanes need SIGNAGE! Too many times I have no idea where a bike path goes or if it ends or turns in a different direction because there is not a single bike traffic sign anywhere. Imagine driving the city with no signs, it would be utter calamity!
    Build bike roads the way you would build car roads – SAFETY FIRST.

    PLEASE PLEASE build active transport bridges over the river connecting directly into the U of M.
16. Regular bike commuter — July 25, 2017 at 8:48 am

    I agree that flow and continuity are important. The jogs and road crossings around the Wallace building on the plan are ridiculous. Bikes should go with and in the direction of traffic. Why would a cyclist want to make three road crossings when travelling west past Wallace when they could just flow around the corner with traffic?

Comments have been closed.